W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Named Graphs / Layers / Surfaces / Doohickies added to JSON-LD

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 22:22:25 -0400
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1336184545.27977.265.camel@waldron>
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 23:13 -0400, Manu Sporny wrote:
> * Really, really don't like all of the new terminology that the group
>    is creating - having both 'graph' and 'layer' doesn't help simplify
>    this stuff to Web developers. Use a base word, like 'graph' and
>    modify it for the different types of graphs - graph snapshot,
>    graph container, etc.

That's very important feedback.   The RDF-WG seems to feel strongly that
it shouldn't change the terms it used in 2004, but perhaps it needs more

I've been leaning the past two days toward:
   g-snap ==> RDF Graph
   g-box  ==> (RDF) (data) space

but I hear you suggesting:
   g-snap ==> graph snapshot
   g-box  ==> graph container  

which certain helps us go with the grain -- it makes it very clear that
'graph' is glosses over certain distinctions.  I kind of like that.

> * We give human-readable HTTP URLs to graphs all the time - aren't
> these
>    "named graphs" called Web pages containing RDFa and/or Microdata?

Note I was using "graph" in the technical/pedantic sense, named g-snap.

And no, Web pages are not g-snaps. 

Here, I just wrote a new and improved guide to the terminology, pointing
out the 1-bit differences:


So, maybe these should all be "graphs" and we can use adjectives to
clarify which kind we mean in those situations where it matters.

   -- Sandro
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2012 02:22:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:04 UTC